Certainly is. The 2 < 3 should be parsed correctly, and the 2nd 3 should be
implicitly converted to a CBox. CodeWarrior compiles this without issue.
"Jim Jennings" <jwjenn mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b6mq4c$12as$1 digitaldaemon.com...

Certainly is. The 2 < 3 should be parsed correctly, and the 2nd 3 should

implicitly converted to a CBox. CodeWarrior compiles this without issue.

I checked it out with g++ and Borland, and they both compiled OK. I try to
do that with all of the anomalies first. I find that often it is me and not
the compiler.
BTW, I thought I had deleted the "Burp" but forgot that I had recompiled
with the comment still there.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Jim J.

Certainly is. The 2 < 3 should be parsed correctly, and the 2nd 3 should be
implicitly converted to a CBox. CodeWarrior compiles this without issue.

Other than another compiler being able to compile this, the form of the
statement violates the rules expressed in 5.16.3 for conversion of expressions
in the conditional operator.
You can fixup the code like:
CBox cBox = (2 < 3) ? aBox : CBox(3);
Richard